|
Reviews of Virtual Learning
Environments (Educational Developments 1.1, January 2000, pp. 17-18) In The Network Nation (1978, 191-197), Hiltz and Turoff described the uses of networked computer communications as a way of widening educational access and supporting life-long learning. After twenty years of further experimentation we are seeing a consolidation and packaging of the software needed to support education, as Virtual Learning Environments. VLEs support all or most of the activities of a course, for students and staff. Their number is growing, so recent reviews are valuable to teachers and institutions considering their use. Let's firstly consider the elements of VLEs. All these can be provided separately and VLEs provide them in different combinations.
Now let's look at some reviews available on the Web. 1. Online Teaching: Tools & Projects by Stuart D. Lee, Susan Armitage, Paul Groves, and Chris Stephens 1999 http://info.ox.ac.uk/jtap/reports/teaching/. This is educational rather than technical. Rejecting a ‘utopian’ view of completely computer-based education, they propose that technology should be used to supplement teaching not replace it, or make it more widely accessible, to improve teaching quality, and introduced in appropriate stages, not neglecting the simpler technologies like computer-mediated communication.’ They recommend a constructivist approach to teaching with the Internet, related to two ideas: learning as guided discovery and resource-based learning. They suggest different degrees of use of online tools depending on the teaching goals of the course and the technological capability of the host institution. VLEs are at the heavy end of this spectrum, combining many tools. 2. The TALENT Web site (Teaching and learning with network technologies) http://www.le.ac.uk/TALENT/tools.html TALENT offers institutions organizational, educational, and technical support for, and strategies to implement effective network technologies on the Web for teaching and learning. Much of the TALENT site concerns institutional change and support for learning technology but it includes some support for teachers. The list of Web tools includes 17 VLEs (this is not a complete list!) but it does not evaluate them. It points out that one of the main problems with VLEs at present is the lack of compatibility between systems; materials produced and managed in one system are not easily transferred to or read by another. 3. Coventry Educational Development Unit http://dh1a-2.coventry.ac.uk:80/learningenvironments/archive.htm This describes 10 VLEs and Web editors but does not compare them. 4. Glasgow Teaching and Learning Service http://www.gla.ac.uk/Otherdepts/TLS/Erica/Software.html Erica McAteer’s list of evaluations of Web software concentrates on CMC, including Features for WBL systems ( http://www.gla.ac.uk/Otherdepts/TLS/Erica/G2criteria.html ) which gives criteria for conferencing systems and a Review of WBL systems (http://www.gla.ac.uk/Otherdepts/TLS/Erica/G2review.html ) which reviews 5 VLEs. 5. FOCUS http://www.focus.ac.uk/focus/index.htm The FOCUS site is developing a database of Web educational tools, which in future may be invaluable if it is maintained, but presently it has little content. 6. A Framework for Pedagogical Evaluation of Virtual Learning Environments by Sandy Britain and Oleg Liber http://www.jtap.ac.uk/reports/htm/jtap-041.html This is a JTAP report from Bangor University Centre for Learning Technology. As a systematic review of VLE’s, as opposed to less integrated tools, this is a heavyweight. It tries three different sets of evaluation criteria. The first, based on Laurillard’s (1993) Conversational Framework model of learning, uses 6 criteria of supporting educational actions. They are not very successful and the most interesting idea is one single discriminator mentioned in passing (section 2.5) - the extent to which a VLE is designed for ‘delivery’ rather than be truly ‘interactive’ - in other words, how much support there is for student input and control. Their second set of criteria is based on Laurillard’s classification of media, discursive, adaptable, interactive and reflective. This is more useful, in that it draws out differences relevant to the emphases of the courses: delivery, shared content or collaboration. However, the validity of this classification has been criticized (Bostock 1996). Neither set deals well with course management, for which a third model is used. In conclusion, one is left with the feeling that developing evaluation criteria for VLEs is an almost impossible task, equivalent to criteria for evaluating the whole collection of media and activities for any non-virtual course. The important criterion is the support they give for the educational activities and interactions that are planned. Just as educational software designs can be crudely ranged from objectivist to constructivist (Boyle 1997, Phillips 1997), VLEs could be arranged in a similar order. While any VLE can be bent to the will of the teacher to a degree, they naturally fit a spectrum of styles of using online media from the narrowly instructional to those supporting more active learning (Tait 1997, Bostock 1997). Traditional VLEs (such as Learning Space, WebCT, TopClass Virtual University, Courseinfo from Blackboard, Web Course in a Box) have many features for tutors and students, but basically have a ‘structural’ approach to courses as content, generally with asynchronous discussion and student activity tracking, and sometimes with MCQs. Some VLEs like CoMentor and Firstclass primarily support synchronous and asynchronous discussions and so may allow student control depending on how they are used. At the other end of the spectrum, CoSE is explicitly designed to support active, constructivist learning approaches, but does not include CMC, assuming that a Web based conferencing system will be patched in. Learning Landscapes is also designed to support resource-based learning. References Bostock S.J.1996, A critical review of Laurillard’s classification of educational media, Instructional Science, Journal of Instructional Science 24, 71-88 Bostock, S.J. 1997, Designing Web-Based Instruction for Active Learning, chapter 26 in Web Based Instruction, ed. Badrul Khan, February1997, published by Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey ISBN 0-87778-297-0 Boyle, Tom 1997 Design for multimedia learning London: Prentice Hall Hiltz, S. R. and Turroff, M. 1976 The Network Nation London: Addison-Wesley Laurillard, D 1993 Rethinking University Teaching, London: Routledge. Phillips, P. 1997 The developer’s handbook to interactive multimedia, London: Kogan Page Tait, B. 1997 ‘Constructive Internet Based Learning’ Active Learning 7 (December) pp. 3-8.
Links to VLE home sites are listed in the reviews and on my Web Based Learning page http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/cs/Stephen_Bostock/wbi.html#technologies
|
|